Supreme Court Political Cartoon and Commentary

Dear Publisher,

I cannot emphasize how much I disagree with your lead story on the Supreme Court! It is not that I agree with the Court’s findings. In this case I do not. What is appalling to me is the way you demonized the justices whose opinion you disagree with. It is important to understand that the Supreme Court is the highest institution of justice in our country, and regardless of its rulings, the integrity of the Court as an institution must be maintained. Why should the Court be respected when it makes a seemingly unfair ruling? Because the structure and process of the Court, regardless of any particular finding, is still the highest level of justice and civilization reached yet by mankind. To create contempt for the institution by emotionally smearing the principals involved undermines our civilization. These appalling attempts to discredit the institution by manipulating your reader’s emotions are simply using your reader’s as means to your ends. This is something Sarah Palin and Tea Party activists do. Presenting an understanding of the issues at hand so that your reader’s can grasp all angles while also presenting your objection to the findings is responsible journalism. What you wrote is not. John Ruane (Sun Political Editor)

POINT

When the Prosecutor Hides Evidence -

The fix is In

In what the Huffington Post has described as an act of meanness, Clarance Thomas, writing for the majority, has reversed a jury verdict in New Orleans that would have awarded $14 million dollars to a man who was wrongly imprisoned for 18 years - 14 of them on death row. His lawyers were in route to warn his family to prepare for the execution when an investigator found the first piece of a long string of hidden evidence.

Since 1962 the rule is that a prosecutor must turn over evidence to the defense which may establish innocence. It's called the Brady rule. Congress put teeth in the rule with a civil rights law allowing wronged defendants to recover money in cases where untrained prosecutor's have routinely railroaded a defendant.

Opinion by Charlie Perry, Illustrations by Kody Moe

You Need to Figure Out

Where He's Speaking From

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was so outraged by the majority's ruling that she read her dissent from the bench for the first time this term. Supporting Justice Thomas was Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. The vote was five to four in favor of dumping the jury's decision.

The decision to hide evidence from the defense was not the work of an inexperienced assistant prosecutor working alone. There were five lawyers involved, counting Harry Connick, Sr. who led the prosecutor's office and a former prosecutor who heard a death bed confession from one of the prosecutors involved, and then sat on it. All of the prosecutors who hid the evidence were senior personnel in the the prosecutor's office.

The jury made a specific finding that there was a Brady violation in either the carjacking case or the murder trial caused by Mr. Connick's "failure, through deliberate indifference to establish" policy and procedures to protect a defendant's rights."

In testimony to a jury, Mr. Connick swore that a prosecutor must disclose a crime lab report even if the prosecutor does not know the defendant's blood type because it "Qualifies as Brady material." He admitted that he was once indicted by the United States Attorney for failure to disclose such a report. He said that he "stopped reading law books...and looking at opinions" after becoming the DA.

He killed a grand jury investigation of his staff in this case. The reason he gave is that it would make his job harder [if his lawyers were held accountable].

The majority reached its tortured decision in part by reasoning that it is the job of law schools to teach the Brady rule, not the prosecutor's office. One prosecutor did not remember if his law school covered the Brady case or not. At another's school, criminal law was not even a required course. In fact, Justice Ginsberg's dissent points out that criminal law is not a required course in the majority of American law schools.

The four justices who voted to allow the jury verdict to stand reasoned that the five prosecutors involved disregarded the Brady rights . "...they kept from him, year upon year, evidence vital to his defense. Their conduct, he showed with equal force, was a foreseeable consequence of lax training in, and absence of monitoring of, a legal requirement fundamental to a fair trial."

Rationale Requires Imagination

Justice Scalia Provides It

It can be difficult to find that no Brady violation exists. Especially when the prosecutor being sued has already stipulated that such a violation does exist.

Like a drowning man grasping at straws or perhaps more like Count Dismal ruling against peasant ownership rights during the Dark Ages, Associate Justice Antonin Gregory Scaliahas provided that imagination in the form of a new rule that does not exist in law - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Basically, if a prosecutor has blood stain evidence such as in this case, if the prosecutor does not test it, he can hide it.

Associate Justice Scalia is an only child. He is the father of nine children. He also favors the use of the death penalty for the execution of children. One can only speculate as to the source of meanness in the Supreme Court decision in this travesty of justice.

The Scalia Don't Ask Don't Tell Doctrine is a red flag, calling for legislative action. Congress must draft new civil rights legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from substituting their judgment for the jury's judgment. Once it has been proven that the prosecution hid evidence that is vital to the defense, the door should be open for damages against the prosecution. Congress should also look at criminal sanctions. There must be a point when the prosecutor becomes the criminal by hiding evidence vital to a criminal defendant's defense. An innocent man in prison and on death row for 18 years is just wrong.

Reply

The same argument could be made about the integrity of the United States Senate or the Office of the Mayor of New York City. Had Edward R. Murrow honored the integrity of the senate, the Red Scare creator, Senator Joseph McCarthy, may not have fallen. Had cartoonist Thomas Nast honored the integrity of the mayor's office, New York may or may not be a different place because of the fall of Tammany Hall occasioned by the pencil of the great political cartoonist.

[Two self portraits, one of Mr. Nast sharpening his pencil and one of Mr. Perry drawing his own self portrait].

The 1950's broadcast by Mr. Murrow, A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy brought attention to the senator's misdoings. He was immediately marginalized and was out of office less than three years later. Mr. Nast did the same with Mayor Oakey Hall and his supporter, Boss Tweed, who went to prison.

Retort

Dear Publisher,

You suggested that the same argument that I made regarding the integrity of the court could also be made regarding the Senate of the United States and the Mayor's Office of New York City. This is not true. The same argument does not apply.First of all, the reason for upholding the integrity of the Supreme Court is not the argument that it is an authority and that it should be respected for the sake of authority. The Supreme Court, and its rulings and opinions are a process, it is the process that is to be respected. If a justice acted in such a way that he violated the process, that would be a violation of the Court's integrity. The rulings and opinions are, of course, subject ot further debate and discussion. And a sincere attempt to debate and discuss those opinions and rulings does not

The Senate is a legislative body and any Mayor's Office is an administrative function. There is no inherent justice process in either one. Criticising legislative decisions or administrative actions is a necessary function as both legislative decisions and administrative actions imply a judgment based on some degree on consensus. The more debate and discussion simply expands the field of consensus. Both are judgment calls without respect to precedents.

Listen to Edwin R. Morrow's comments on Senator Joe McCarthy. He did not denigrate the Senator. Murrow elevated the issue thereby exposing the inadequatecy and danger of Senator McCarthy's position and rhetoric.

Now compare Morrow's comments to those of the Clearwater Sun. The Sun did nbot elevate the issue, it only denigrated the justices.

If the Clearwater Sun did make its social and political arguments and rhetoric on the same level as Murrow's, then surely, the Clearwater Sun would become an opinion leader for those who expect reason and justice.

John Ruane

﻿

For Advertising Call Charlie 727-504-9126

Notice - The Tiki Culture Duo is no longer accepting engagements due to the recent death of Flautist - Composer Claude Kennedy (Master of Arts in Composition USF).

His bassist is in the Master of Fine Arts in Music and Sound Design program at San Francisco's Academy of Arts U.